stuart wrote:
> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
<---snip--->
>>Always? You like "Acceptance" from the Big Book?
>>Back to the issue at hand, who do you know is wasting a lot of one's
>>capacity on a past problem? Are you old enough to remember the Civil
>>Rights movement of the 60s? Were these angry people who kept repeatedly
>>taking to the streets wasting a lot of capacity? And if not, why not?
>>Which wrongs is it okay to use your anger to address and which ones
>>aren't okay?
>
>
> Granted there are exeptions. But in the case of AA, most are there
> voluntarily, except the VERY few (in Canada) who are coerced by the court.
> The civil rights movement dealt with civil wrongs or torts. This would be an
> acceptable exception. You argue that the dismantling of AA is in the same
> category?
>

Stuart,

There are an estimated between one and two million people coerced into
the Step group by various levels of government in the U.S. The
collusion between the governments and the Step groups needs to be
dismantled. I never said anything about dismantling AA. Of course, if
people knew what AA was and millions weren't forced to go to meetings,
"internalize spiritual principles" and etc, it would certainly shrink a
great deal in size.

>>
>>>Firstly, it hurts. Secondly, it seriously
>>>detracts from one's ability to function in the present moment,
>
> denigrating
>
>>>one's earning power, one's enjoyment of life, and one's usefulness to
>>>oneself and one's friends and family. The pain of the past is being
>>>constantly re-introduced to the present moment. Is that healthy? It's
>
> like
>
>>>continuing to pick at a scab...
>>
>>Actually, it doesn't necessarily hurt to be angry. It certainly hurts
>>when one is very angry and struggling to repress it. Do you know what
>>repression is? Do you know what the old term "passive aggressive"
>>refers to?
>
> Yes Ken. Psych 101 1972
>
>
>>>I don't know a single person who has not been seriously fucked over once
>
> or
>
>>>twice. Healthy people deal with it as best as they can, people who are
>
> not
>
>>>emotionally healthy can't or won't.
>>
>>And just how is "the best they can"?
>
>
> A healthy person physically gets over a cold, or even surgery. A healthy
> individual emotionally learnes to repair the damage of an emotional harm.
> Now in both instances they may need help. A person who has been harmed
> emotionally and has healed from the damage just doesn't stand out like those
> who don't. if you arguing that those who don't need a forum, fine. But
> denigrating members of a lay support group is like hitting children to
> express anger.
> You can take excpetion to the 12 steps, however, that's perfectly fine with
> me also.
>

Are Jewish people still wounded by what happened in the Holocaust not
"healthy individuals"? People I've met in years past did stand out
because of tatoos on their arms, but even before, they stood out because
of their expressions and body language. I'm sorry, but there is nothing
unhealthy at having a normal, natural human response to life situations.
It doesn't matter what any doctrine might insist.

When I hear Steppers talk about "serenity" and such, I can't help but
think of a drug high, where one is absolutely untroubled by the real
world, whatever may be going on in it.

>
>
>>>Sorry to tell you that we are not all equally healthy either physically
>
> or
>
>>>mentally.
>>
>>So is this mentally not healthy referring to brain disease? Is that it?
>> If someone kicks you in the teeth you are short on the mental health
>>end until you make amends or something?
>>
>>
>>>Reliance upon God is a source of strength for some, but not for others.
>
> No
>
>>>one has the right to tell another what will work, or not work for their
>>>mental well-being. Your position is predicated on all sorts of beliefs,
>>>which you can neither prove nor disprove, just like my own beliefs.
>>
>>There is one major difference. I don't support and proseletyze for an
>>organization that forces their view on millions of others. Moreover, I
>>don't decide just which of my thoughts are from God or "spiritual" and
>>which ones aren't.
>
>
> Neither do I, but you on the other hand seem to ridicule those with
> spiritual beliefs.

No. I ridicule those with overt religious beliefs who have been
socialized into saying "spiritual, not religious" as they have been
taught. That is ridiculous.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com